Slashdot Mirror
Alaska: The Only US State Where Everyone Gets Free Money
merbs writes: Alaska’s Permanent Fund was established in 1976, in the midst of a black gold rush; the massive Trans-Alaska pipeline was in the process of being built, and the state had reaped $900 million in revenue from the sale of drilling leases in Prudhoe Bay, the largest oil field in North America, in a matter of years. In a matter of a few more, it’d spent it. Alaskans soon recognized that their enormous oil reserves were nonetheless limited, so, with a kind of longterm forward-thinking rarely seen in politics today, they voted to add an amendment to the state constitution to establish a fund that would protect a portion of all incoming oil wealth for future generations. In 2014, the net income of the fund was $6.8 billion dollars and the dividend doled out $1,884 to 640,000 citizens, despite a decline in oil revenues that year.
And Alaska living isn't easy or cheap.
so get a paper divorce and get more?
also add medicare / medicaid (joined in to one) for all.
The bizarre thing about the dividend is how holy it is. People here seem to think that everyone is entitled to free money from their government, not that it's an aberration for a state to write you a check just because it has some valuable resources.
It's only a matter of time here before the dividend is repealed. We've made a lot of decisions lately (tax wise) that favor the big corps, that have drained income from government/education budgets, and were supposed to, you know, JOBS! The dividend won't stay sustainable with government expenditure.
They are royalties for resources held in the ground which are government property, not free money. Who else has a better claim to it, than the owners of the land, i.e., the people.
We paid for it when purchased under President Johnson, at the behest of Seward.
No, that's just welfare.
With communism there is no money at all...in theory of course. Basically you have to force people to work for free, and eventually people get pissed off because some people feel that they do more work than other people, and aren't justly rewarded, and so they leave. Then your GDP goes to shit and you turn to socialism just to try to maintain the status quo of your local political leadership, which is where everybody works for the government as the government owns the means of production for every single industry, and indeed there is a return to currency, and you pretend to work while the government pretends to pay you.
At least, this is what has happened to every single commune to ever exist anyways. The only ones to have emerged from that rut eventually just returned to full blown capitalism.
That's the thing with grandiose plans for universal welfare: They're never that well thought out.
It's a genius idea and a perfect way to seriously gut the federal, state, and local governments of useless bureaucrats. Welfare programs are horribly sexists and promote single motherhood something that is neither good nor should be celebrated. Institute a living wage, gut the governments of their useless bureaucratic leeches, eliminate the minimum wage, and end pensions. I'd be thrilled to see something like that instituted. Being a bureaucrat shouldn't be encouraged as a career choice. You'll see hyperinflation before such a program comes about
And also, you'd have to pay me a lot more than 1,800$ to want to live in Alaska. Something northwards of $150k and then maybe i'd consider it for 3-5 years. Otherwise, pass on the great cold north.
Damn, that's sounds a lot like the perfect recipe to create third world conditions right here at home. Do you like the idea of stepping over dying old people while kids beg from you in the street? Is that really your idea of paradise?
Cute. The 640,000 citizens received in total $1.2 billion dollars.
If this had happened in Texas (another state that produces a lot of oil, though in general doesn't have all the natural resources Alaska has), those $1.2 billion would amount to... less than $45 for each of it's 27 million inhabitants.
Now it doesn't look as cool, does it?
Confessing ignorance, I wonder how Alaska's method compares with what other oil-rich governments have done and with what effect : for example, Norway, or the Canadian province of Alberta.
If this had happened in Texas those $1.2 billion would amount to... less than $45 for each of it's 27 million inhabitants.
Now it doesn't look as cool, does it?
True, but using it for infrastructure/schools/etc. and giving a tax reduction might work too...
In communism you have money, but nothing to buy with it on the shelves. In capitalism the shelves are always choke full but you don't have money.
I know you're joking, but...
The first sentence in your statement defines socialism, not communism, and pretty well at that (often times people may have money but nothing worth buying.) It's understandable because most people confuse the two, but in communism there indeed is no money. The USSR identified themselves as communist, but they in fact fit the economic definition of socialism.
As far as the second sentence in your statement, capitalism tends to be very well self correcting in that regard. Namely, if you don't have money, then nobody would have any reason to put anything on the shelves. Though usually what ends up happening is somebody figures out a way to capitalize on a given market, even the super low price ones. Take for example the recent slashdot article talking about how a lot of manufacturers were selling Android smartphones in the US for under $50.
How can the reader tell when a word is a Proper Noun, Trademarked, etc; or when it is an Ordinary Word? I've complained about this before and some have claimed that the slashdot way is always used by journalists. Well that's not true and here is proof. Slashdot's way is stupid and unconscionable. Look at this summary extracted from today's headlines at Google news. Note the familiar publisher's names and how they handle capitalization in titles:
Dozens of coalition troops die in Houthi missile strike in Yemen ... ...
CNN
Finnish PM's offer to migrants: Take my spare house
STLtoday.com
Protests Continue in Southern Syrian City
Voice of America
47 dead as rebels battle IS in north Syria: monitor
Financial Express
Vast, stubborn Fresno wildfire expected to rage through long weekend
Los Angeles Times
What have Bush, Clinton learned from voters attraction to the outsiders?
Washington Post
Police pay respects to slain Texas lawman
Brownsville Herald
Plainclothes cops keep eye out for Times Square hustlers
seattlepi.com
No more union coal mines remain in Kentucky, home of the deadly battles of
Fox Business
Jobless rate falls to 5.1%, a 7-year low
NWAOnline
New England's ports, long past their prime, seek comeback with niches in
Fox Business
Advisory Group Says BofA Should Split CEO and Chairman Roles
New York Times
Apple will show a lot more than iPhones at its September event
Mashable
Google may return to China with Android app shop: report
Livemint
Uber Expires Share Your ETA Links After 48 Hours
I4U News
Destiny composer Marty O'Donnell wins court case against Bungie
Load The Game
Farthest-ever 3.2-billion-years old galaxy detected
The Indian Express
Scientists hunt for clues in mysterious deaths of 60000 antelopes in four days
Christian Science Monitor
Predator population grows slowly in crowded environment: Study
NYC Today
University of Kansas Researchers Discover Quark-Gluon Plasma
NYC Today
Legionnaires' disease outbreaks in three states, 8 people died in Illinois
The Standard Daily
Scientists working on making a gadget to cure seasickness
Nature World Report
CDC is funding to help state health department to eradicate painkiller abuse
The Standard Daily
Take Aspirin to boost your immunotherapy treatment during cancer
PPP Focus.com
...omphaloskepsis often...
Something else Texas doesn't have: a state income tax.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Don't forget Wall St. We have been artificially holding interest rates at 0 for 7 years now just to give an enormous boost to the financial industries. That far exceeds the dividend to Alaskans. Nobody is making any noise about that.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Of a lower 48 payout of FCC spectrum leases, US forest logging revenue, and mineral royalties.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Don't punish marriage, and don't introduce conditions that require employees to address. Best to have it all automatic. A big part of the savings of UI is the elimination of administrative costs. If people want to save money by living together, let them.
An unmarried couple still is a couple. Welfare systems may look at the household and not care if the people there are married or not.
I live in socialist Denmark and have plenty of stuff i would like to buy...
Many invest their children's PFDs to put them through college ..
Some piss it all off at walmart, etc
I usually invest mine in my home.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
Not caring for couples vs singles makes it easier, as you eliminate bureaucracy / moral burden for that and it may be considered implicit child support. (Yes, there's the $250 per month for a child too)
Have you calculated the annual cost of your scheme and figured out the effects it would have on inflation? Because you should do that.
"22-66: $500/month/person
22-66: $750/month/couple"
So you'd punish couples?
Where the hell do you live that welfare/disability pays enough to buy endless beer and meth? I know a couple of people on disability and they have a fuck of a time just eating satisfactorily, little well being able to buy more then a 6 pack of beer once a month.
There's also one fuck of a lot of homeless people around and they sure don't look like they're having a great life, especially when the weather turns to shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
This is exactly why I believe universal income is a good thing. No fear to lose welfare, or just uncertainty from changing lifestyle and go to a working place where everyone is frowning, tired and living in submission and/or fear and "competing" with colleagues for crumbs or a permanent position. If you can even get hired in the first place.
Instead, the bums could go to work for a 20 hours a week unskilled job smiling, and the oppressed workers have a range of options from quitting the job, working a bit less, studying or considering a better job, having a better bargaining position etc.
Actually it's neither, it's wealth redistribution.
At least when applied to the US where 99% of the population produces all domestic wealth while 1% of the population has over 60% of the wealth. What does the other 1% do? Since they have the majority of the wealth they effectively loan most of it back to some of the people who actually generate wealth and charge them interest. In other words, they contribute nothing.
The price tag to join this group is a mere $17-20 million which will yield you the salary of the president passively. You don't have to trade for it or risk, at this point you can invest in all the markets and reap the growth diversifying away the risks of making poor choices almost entirely. Although a few bad overall years can get you booted with reserves that small (things like the great depression). You really need about 4 times that to be completely secure. Since you own everything you don't have to spend much which works out, you can easily shift funds in ways count as tax deductible spending so you wouldn't be in the top 1% by income in fact you'll end up in the bottom tier paying 9%. By "you" I mean your accounting team of course, you don't even have to do work that only benefits yourself at this point.
> like you do in Texas.
Never been to Alaska, eh?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
"Explain, please."
"Whay I can see Russia from my house!"
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Socialism means that the factories (means of production) belong to the state. This is not the case in Denmark, so your use of the word socialism is ignorant and incorrect.
Where is this mass of invaders coming from? You are aware that there has been no net immigration from Mexico in the last 5 years.
The US deported over 300k Mexican citizens in 2013.
Even as border apprehensions dropped, deportations of Mexican immigrants reached a record high in 2013 of 314,904, up from 169,031 in 2005. This is due in part to a 2005 shift in policy that has increased the chances of being deported following apprehension in the border region, instead of just being sent back without an order of removal.
They're still trying, but that does seem like the US could be doing something better with its resources than stopping "invaders".
Yes for non_americans reading this they are properly addressed and not called Indians like the rest of the lower 48. Alaskan English at it's finest :-)
Since we are stealing their land we compensated them for it. That money will greatly help them out where jobs are scarce in the arctic villages and prices and supplies high in cost. During a good year the PFD can be as high as $3,000 a person. If you are a family of 4 in a village on the arctic coast up north that money will buy fuel for the winter and a new snowmobile for the kids to get to school .... no folks I am not exaggerating that last one :-)
http://saveie6.com/
Plus in Alaska you don't have 27 millions assholes like you do in Texas.
Oh look another texan with a 1" penis driving a Ford F550 pickup jacked sky high and rilling coal.
?? Have you been to Alaska? It is loaded with gun loving conservatives who own trucks and Suburu's (because they are all wheel drive). Not bashing the state but it is as red as Alabama due to it's military presence and those who hate society and go to get a more minimalist approach.
http://saveie6.com/
Socialism means that the factories (means of production) belong to the state. This is not the case in Denmark, so your use of the word socialism is ignorant and incorrect.
I'm an American, and I find that the Trotskyites here call anything they don't like - "socialism". It's...... complex, some how.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I reject that definition. It doesn't matter who's name is on the ownership papers of the factory. Who chooses what is made? If you choose to make Fruit Cocktail, and are required to make it to a specific formula, then you are under a hybrid system (capitalist/socialist), like the USA. If you can choose to make anything you want, however you want (including stealing competitors formulas and logos), then you are pure capitalist. If the state tells you "we need more peaches this year, so that's what you'll be canning" then it's socialist.
All systems in existence today are hybrid. The USA is the only place that picks a line in the hybrid continuum and declares it "capitalism" and, of course, they are the most socialistic entry in that definition, and the definition changes daily.
Learn to love Alaska
That's good for the environment :).
No really, some people just won't work, it's like the left handed or homosexuals. Getting rid of them is pointless. Suck it up. If you're from the US, welcome to the part of the developed world with permanent 10+% unemployment. You had a good run thanks to your huge land and oil resources. Now your productivity and GDP are too high for everyone to work.
Yes. Two people living together live more cheaply than two people living apart. So payment should take reality into account. Why do you hate reality?
Learn to love Alaska
The system causes welfare. I have a cousin. He has medical troubles. He's on lifelong disability. He tried to get a job once. It worked out that something like $1 income cut his benefits by $10. So it's cheaper to stay on disability than find a job. He spends a large portion of his time begging. Why? Because it's the only way he can think of to get a small increase in income without losing benefits. Also, once on permanent disability, it's impossible to pop on and off it as you try to find work.
If you really lived in that neighborhood, and aren't just lying anonymously on the Internet to make a point, then you have low levels of empathy such that you'd probably test as mentally ill.
Learn to love Alaska
Relevant to this thread, in Denmark the oil and gas production does belong to the state, through a hilariously named state enterprise called DONG Energy. But it's true that many other things are privately owned. Maersk, for example, is not owned by the state, but the other way around.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yes, I have an uncle with MS who's on disability, and he can't even pay his rent with it. He gets $600/mo, and rents a cheap apartment in a shitty part of Los Angeles for about $550/mo. He can only buy food and pay for his medical co-pays because we send him money.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
That was Nip/Tuck season 5.
The USSR identified themselves as communist
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Wanted : A Signature.
The Permanent Fund was originally conceived by Gov. Miller (R) and brought to fruition by Gov. Hammond (R). At the time the state legislature (dominated by Democrats) wanted to keep the money in the general fund where they could decide how it would be spent, but the residents of Alaska preferred the idea of distributing the money.
And East Germany was Democratic, too.
If they are called USSR, why do their Olympic athletes have CCCP on their outfits?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
1. I'm not punishing marriage. Married couples have shared expenses so it decreases the need somewhat.
You ARE punishing marriage. Two single friends living as roomates in an apartment have the same shared expenses but get more. (BingBang Theory's Leonard and Sheldon, each get the single payment.) Then Leonard falls for Penny moves next door, and they each get less now. That's punishing marriage.
Just give everyone the same amount. Give everyone half the married amount, and it will actually cut your program costs down. Yes, it might force singles to live with roomates, rent basements or room-and-board, share utilities, etc. So what?
Fwiw, I fully support a living wage, at least in principle. But there's no reason payment to marriage. When I was in university, 5 friends rented house together, to split expenses; there's no reason for them to qualify for the 'single' payment, while a couple that gets married gets less per person.
If people want to pool resources and share expenses just let them find solutions on their own. Don't try to build it into your plan.
You poor lost soul.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Two thoughts on this. First, don't make a distinction between people and couples. Personally, I think government should get out of the marriage racket and just provide legal infrastructure for domestic partnerships.
Second, my primary concern with this has always been the moral hazard. $6,000 per year per adult isn't very much so why not vote for politicians who promise to give you more? There's always been a significant portion of the US that just doesn't care about the future or understand economics. While some of those people happen to be rich, a lot more aren't. Getting more basic income is going to be an obvious desire.
In the Alaskan case, we still have that moral hazard, but we also have a natural pushback, namely, the revenue funding this scheme comes from the pipelines, not some nebulous tax revenue or debt that we can make higher at will.
I reject that definition.
You can reject it all you'd like. You can reject that the color of the night sky is black and argue that it is white too, but the fact remains otherwise. What the USSR had was socialism; the government owned all of the factories and other means of production, and everybody in the country worked for the government.
Capitalism means a free market economy, and a free market simply means that prices are determined by the forces of supply and demand.
If you choose to make Fruit Cocktail, and are required to make it to a specific formula,
No, there is no such requirement in the US. Though typically it's beneficial to your product if its name at least somewhat describes what it is. You might get sued by your customers if you call it chicken soup and they don't find any chicken in it however. There are also certain guidelines for what levels of foreign material may be found in food products you sell (for example, the FDA has certain guidelines for the limit for the number of insect eggs and body parts that may be found in different types of vegetables) but that's a safety guideline and not an economic one.
So again, your understanding of socialism is incorrect.
If you can choose to make anything you want, however you want (including stealing competitors formulas and logos), then you are pure capitalist.
You're confusing capitalism with anarchy. Again, capitalism just means free markets, and a free market is one where prices are determined by supply and demand. Anarchy means there are no rules and you just do whatever the hell you want.
All systems in existence today are hybrid.
No, they're not. Most European countries do have some markets that are socialist, namely they run a health care system where the means of production (the medical staff) is owned and run by the government. THAT is socialism, but everything else in those countries is capitalist. When they take from the rich and give to the poor however, that is not socialism, that's welfare.
Correct, they had that in their name, but when you look at the things their political leaders said, they always self identified as communist. For example, the governing party during the USSR days was the CPSU, or Communist Party Soviet Union.
If you choose to make Fruit Cocktail, and are required to make it to a specific formula, then you are under a hybrid system (capitalist/socialist), like the USA. If you can choose to make anything you want, however you want (including stealing competitors formulas and logos), then you are pure capitalist. If the state tells you "we need more peaches this year, so that's what you'll be canning" then it's socialist.
Actually it is all wrong, more or less at least.
Capitalism is half a specific model of society but more so a specific model for an economy.
Communism and socialism are both models of society. The economic model - often paired with them - is a "planned economy", does not really matter who owns the means of production.
All systems in existence today are hybrid. Correct. E.g. China is communistic and capitalistic in the same moment. And neither Russia nor China are democracies ... americans like to mix the political system into the economic / social system all the time, as if 'capitalism' would imply 'democracy', which it does not.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You're wrong. I don't think it's a big problem.
Sure, some people are going to get divorced, but I'm still sticking to my idea of 1.5 times for married couples. Not everyone will get divorced. Do you think people would get divorced over $3k/year for the couple?
You see, this is exactly why I vehemently oppose political leaders who espouse socialism and universal welfare: They always have these ideas on paper that they think will work out perfectly, but then they fail to take into account many many variables such as what you're missing here, and after they're elected and their policies get implemented, they discover the hard way that they made shit a lot worse (See Francoise Hollande and what happened after his brilliant idea for a 75% tax on the rich was implemented: He later ended up lobbying against his own tax hikes because it resulted in a mass exodus of wealthy individuals, and their GDP took a shit, the unemployment rate never recovered along with the rest of the world (hint: poor people don't create jobs) and best of all? Their tax revenue actually declined dramatically; read about the Laffer Curve.)
Now in your particular case, here's why it won't work: Yes, if people think they can get a 33% pay increase, they'll get a divorce and still live together as if they weren't divorced.
Here's another problem you're forgetting: Who is going to pay for all of this? Tax the rich and the corporations, right? With what, a 75% tax rate? We've already seen what happens when you do that.
And yet another problem: Giving redistributing money in massive numbers like that creates inflation, making that money worth less. It comes down to how people value their money, and they value it less when it's just given to them.
But if you really like this kind of thing, go move to Venezuela or Cuba, they agree with you there. I'd say China or Russia as well, but they've already seen why ideas like yours don't work, and have since moved away from that rut.
Disability paid by Social Security is considered "welfare" by most definitions.
Oh, and he never paid into Social Security, so I'm not sure how you are so 100% wrong 100% of the time. Do you know how it works? Or do you hate it without understanding?
Learn to love Alaska
No, there is no such requirement in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Reality disagrees with you.
Learn to love Alaska
If this had happened in Texas (another state that produces a lot of oil, though in general doesn't have all the natural resources Alaska has), those $1.2 billion would amount to... less than $45 for each of it's 27 million inhabitants.
I think that you're forgetting that Texas produces about 8x as much crude as Alaska. If they had setup a similar fund we would be talking about at least $400 per year. Not too shabby.
Now, if either state had followed Norway's lead and kept most of the oil profits for themselves, we would be talking about substantially larger amounts of dividends or savings. Norway's fund is now approaching a trillion dollars in value -- for a country with a population one fifth that of Texas's, and approximately the same level of crude production.
Hey mate, spare a sig?
Quick calculation seems that the fund is worth about $70k per head (pop 740k). Not shabby.
Norway (pop ~5M) has the largest fund in the world, also from oil revenues, which owns an estimated 1% of world equities. That fund value is about $170k per head. It doesn't pay dividends to citizens, rather using the money to pay government pensions (thus saving gov revenue).
I can't find (from perfunctory searching) historic figures of value (thus growth) for both that I can compare, but it would be interesting to compare the investment return of both, and the management fees.
A complete irrelevant metric. The percentage is high only because home prices are low in Texas. Instead, a much more relevant metric would be to take a typical home (1500 sq ft?) and calculate the average property tax in dollars for that house and then compare that dollar value across states.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Reality disagrees with you.
For labeling purposes, maybe, but there is no specific formula like you said there was; this leaves a lot of room for interpretation as to what a fruit cocktail actually is. You could even use the minimum values there and add grapefruit.
Still, this in no way fits the definition of socialism. In fact, since you used wikipedia, let's use it to reinforce what I said earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and/or social control[1] of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[2][3] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
Now a lot of socialists will tell you that "the people" own the means of production and vote on what the prices of goods will be, but in reality it almost never ends up that way; it's usually governed by political leaders who claim to represent "the people" but never do and just grant themselves favors, and silence anybody who opposes them. In the few cases where it does end up that way, either the production is limited or some other bigger controlled entity takes it over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A free market is a market economy system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.
Now this doesn't mean that government can't regulate what a business does, and contrary to what a lot of trolls post in the slashdot comments it doesn't eliminate the rule of law. However it does mean that the government can't set price controls (i.e. price floors and/or price ceilings) and true to its name, prices are determined by the forces of supply and demand.
So two people live together but don't get married?
What's the rate if 4 people live together? How about if one is disabled?
The reality is that gets complicated fast and soon enforcement starts costing more than just not bothering with all that and paying a flat rate.
I'll bet those people were working hard, just not in state sanctioned jobs. True capitalists.
Cheap storage VM.
No one looks at an individual with a disability and says "what a freeloader!"
Come on down to Indiana sometime....
Cheap storage VM.
Where the hell do you live that welfare/disability pays enough to buy endless beer and meth? I know a couple of people on disability and they have a fuck of a time just eating satisfactorily, little well being able to buy more then a 6 pack of beer once a month. There's also one fuck of a lot of homeless people around and they sure don't look like they're having a great life, especially when the weather turns to shit.
Because someone making a billion a year needs that 800 a month the guy on disability makes. How the hell are billionaires going to create jobs if they can't get over that criticaal threshold started by those stupid greedy sick and handicapped fucks?
Or the guy making 30 K a year, who "will be a billionaire" next year. Good luck.
There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. There is something terribly wrong with the hatred shown toward those less fortunate.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
In the economic realm, justice is "get what you pay for, and pay for what you get."
Your scheme is deeply unjust. Fully implementing it would destroy civilization faster than global nuclear war.
As far as you personally are concerned, Anonymous Coward, you want to live without deserving to live. I wish you the fate you deserve.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
...who are trying to destroy the petro economy, that will then go away.
Congrats.
-Styopa
Yes, in the sense that someone who pays for insurance, benefits when the insurance pays off. They can receive far less than they paid in, or far more.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
There's always more work to be done.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Put them on farms, where there's always work to be done. Drugs are less of a problem for people doing hard physical labor 16 hours a day.
Taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who manifestly don't deserve it has always been wrong, and always will be. Furthermore, it sets a bad example; more people will be tempted to live without working.
Judging by the number of whiners on slashdot complaining about how unfair life is for them and others, there are many people whose lives would be significantly better if welfare and other such programs weren't draining from their income.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The USSR identified themselves as communist,
No they didn't. What do you think the name stood for? If they were communist they would have called themselves the USCR.
They fully knew they were socialist, you just have no clue what you're talking about.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If you actually look at what they said, you would see they considered themselves in a transitional state to communism.........fully aware they hadn't arrived yet.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Alabama tried that. In fact, a lot of Southern states tried that - chain gangs.
Conscripted labor, be it through a jail cell or a welfare roll is shit labor. Not worth the money it takes to supervise them. Besides, most farm jobs are skilled positions. If you're working a $100,000 piece of machinery you don't want the idiot next store who can't even read getting up in the cabin. Even picking vegetables takes a modicum of skill and coordination.
It's a tough pill to swallow but there exists a significant portion of the population that really can't do much of anything productive.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Where does America identify as a democracy and not a republic? Hell, read the pledge of allegiance if you want. I can't really think of any official declarations stating that the US is a democracy - we're a representative democracy I suppose but hardly a true democracy. I imagine even Fox News viewers know this.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Are you retarded? The people loaning the money used to generate wealthy contribute nothing? Durp... *sighs* Don't breed.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Well, yes, but so what? That's just a name. They really did explain the communism part if you read anything to government put out. If you just go by the name the Nazis were socialists too, and the North Koreans are democrats.
Yeah, socialists are really really bad about abusing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Anytime a socialist does something despicable, well, a real socialist wouldn't do that. The constant abuse comes from the frightening frequency which people who call themselves socialists commit despicable acts, up to and including genocide.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The federal government bought and paid for Alaska, why should the people who live there be the only ones to benefit from the exploitation of its natural resources?
You do benefit from the natural resources. Who do you think uses the Prudhoe Bay oil, eats the Bristol Bay salmon and wipes their butt on paper made from Alaskan trees? (Yeah, the Japanese eat the herring roe but that's because nobody else will).
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You can reject it all you'd like. You can reject that the color of the night sky is black and argue that it is white too, but the fact remains otherwise.
That's cute, but you're missing something big. He can reject your definitions if he wants to, and, as long as he's consistent with his own definitions, he has the right to do that.
I can call the night sky white if I want to -- just so long as I don't also call my printer paper white. If I do both of those things, then and only then can you complain.
HAND
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
I remember that. From this vantage it's hard to remember there were a bunch of really stupid people in 2008 who actually believed a line from a comedian was actually said by the politician she was lampooning. What makes it ironic is they did this because they thought it made them more intelligent.
You just can't make this stuff up.
That's even worse then the people I know who IIRC get $750 including $450 for rent and since rent is $500 they have $250 to pay everything else. This is BC where food is much more expensive. Medical is free if you're low income and disability covers medication and in the case of one of the people I now, wheel chair and prosthetic leg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I'm an American, and I find that the Trotskyites here call anything they don't like - "socialism". It's...... complex, some how.
When Americans say socialism, they usually mean taxes. Typically they disregard how society indirectly provides benefits like a skilled labor pool, infrastructure and other foundations for modern civilization that enabled their company to make millions in profit. They only narrowly look at the government services they've directly consumed and want their tax bill to match. In fact they might actually argue their tax rate should be lower because a millionaire is still just one man and doesn't consume services in proportion to his income, so they'd rather have a small government and pay themselves. "Socialists" are everybody who want more taxes, progressive taxes, inheritance tax, wealth tax, taxes for welfare, taxes for universal services, taxes for public services or really any form of tax that would redistribute wealth from the rich for the common good. Basically any accumulation of wealth is their own and society has no right to any of it, though those who say that typically want protection of private property and contracts, police, courts and all the other bits that happen to be necessary to keep a large personal fortune. I'm sure it's a coincidence.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Where I am (BC), most disability is just a better class of welfare, same government department paying, just a bigger check ($200?), better medical coverage and no hassle about looking for work. There is also Federal disability which is just early Social Security (Canada Pension Plan, CPP) which can be not bad if you paid enough in when working but hard to get and usually for 50+ year olds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Denmark is not socialist.
Do they have a smart phone? how much they paying?
The ones I know all have land liines
What kind of car to they have?
Mostly none, one has a late '70's Ford Fairmont held together with duct tape and bailing wire. Mostly bikes as can't afford gas.
How much is spent on food? If you had to, you could live on $2 a day on food, drink water, eat ramin soup that are like .49 a bag.
Not for long, especially here in BC. Food gets more expensive the less you buy and to really take advantage of deals you need money to put out (20 lbs of potatoes aren't much more then 5lbs but you need the $8 for the big bag and if you only have $5) and the room to keep it. I know I'm not very wealthy and save a lot of money just having a freezer and being able to take advantage of sales and buying large packages of food.
It is not that they are not given enough money, it is that they think they are entitled to many things and don't think they can survive without um. Homeless can be the same story, or it could be because they dropped out of school. Unless they are retarded, I don't feel sorry for them. Everyone is given a chance at an education.
Up to 25% of the population is mentally disabled, but because it is not visible it is ignored. Most of the street people have mental problems of some type and due to the austerity measures back in the early '80's, there is no support for them.
Just because a disability is invisible doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
They can receive far less than they paid in, or far more.
This is where Actuarial science is important.
http://www.governing.com/gov-d...
Yeah the amount of disability depends in part on how much you paid into the system. It's based on a formula including number of years worked prior to becoming disabled, and how much income you had in each of those years. Somewhat similar to Social Security. So if you became disabled young, or had a low-paying job, you get a small disability benefit.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
don't forget the October sales that spring up - I remember two years ago - the pfd was low (like 724 or something) - and some Tactical Shop had a deal where you could buy any gun of combo of guns up to $750 for $724 :)
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
Here it is a little bit different. Federally it does depend on what you paid in, and is an extension of the country wide pension system. It is hard to get an early federal disability pension and not worth it if you are young.
Most people, including all I currently know, are on the Provincial disability plan, which is a type of welfare, you get more money then an employable person but the limits are hard coded. X amount for living expenses and Y amount for rent, with Y varying depending on receipts though rent has increased fast enough that most everyone qualifies for the maximum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I will get the PFD this year - I've been here since April of 2013 but was only eligible after my full year of residency in 2014 - and there's a lot of conditions (like shipping your passport in) - so don't expect to park a tent behind Carrs/Safeway and get it down the line
This is a kickback from our natural resources - it's also cyclical based on I think a 5 year average of the price of oil - that means it's going to start going down next year as gas starts to plummet
We do have issues with finance in the state - no state income tax is fine but everything is about 15% more expensive (more so on Kodiak or in the Bush) - so it def. balances out - the PFD makes it a little easier for lower income workers to make it up here where the cost of living is higher. A recent poll suggested residents would rather start paying a state tax than tap the PFD for infrastructure - so we'll see how much longer we go without a sales or state income tax - (and some of the more touristy spots DO have a sales tax)
As it turns out my wife got a job up here and my boss lets me Telecommute in my job as a Network Engineer - the GCI fiber just went in so I get 100mb download and 5mb upload but a 300gb cap - however I have a verizon hotspot the company got me for emergencies. I can get 100ms response to Minneapolis - so it's pretty well connected at least in the big cities along the underwater fiber. Out in Nome and most of the bush, they're running Microwave/Fiber to get them some better response but wouldn't be good for low latency/high bandwidth stuff
RB
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
You're wrong. I don't think it's a big problem.
Sure, some people are going to get divorced, but I'm still sticking to my idea of 1.5 times for married couples. Not everyone will get divorced. Do you think people would get divorced over $3k/year for the couple?
You see, this is exactly why I vehemently oppose political leaders who espouse socialism and universal welfare: They always have these ideas on paper that they think will work out perfectly, but then they fail to take into account many many variables such as what you're missing here, and after they're elected and their policies get implemented, they discover the hard way that they made shit a lot worse (See Francoise Hollande and what happened after his brilliant idea for a 75% tax on the rich was implemented: He later ended up lobbying against his own tax hikes because it resulted in a mass exodus of wealthy individuals, and their GDP took a shit, the unemployment rate never recovered along with the rest of the world (hint: poor people don't create jobs) and best of all? Their tax revenue actually declined dramatically; read about the Laffer Curve.)
Now in your particular case, here's why it won't work: Yes, if people think they can get a 33% pay increase, they'll get a divorce and still live together as if they weren't divorced.
Here's another problem you're forgetting: Who is going to pay for all of this? Tax the rich and the corporations, right? With what, a 75% tax rate? We've already seen what happens when you do that.
Business do not pay ANY income tax unless they stop re-investing into the business. Make a billion dollars, and invest that billion back into new equipment/ more labor? You get that billion right back as a deduction from your taxes, so your net taxable income is $0. If individuals could do that, it would be like having $30k of income to be taxed and buying a new car, thus owning $0 in taxes.
Rate wise, as I recall, the USA had a 90% bracket around WW2 and our economy did just fine. Let's give that a go again, because while you think we are right of the Laffer curve's optimal point, all empirical evidence suggests we're far left of the optimal point. But please go on ranting about 6 hour toilet paper lines and how taxes are too high.
Do you correct the conservatives who lump them all together when complaining about the "welfare" of Social Security? That's where I got my usage from. How people use it, not how those who administer Wikipedia wished it was used.
Learn to love Alaska
For people on permanent disability, that sounds like a lot of trouble. I've only known two people on permanent disability. Both refused to work part time in a rehabilitative manner because the rules were impossible for them to follow (or understand).
Are you speaking as someone who's done it, or as someone who has heard about it in theory?
Learn to love Alaska
I do not know where you live, but here a family of four can get up to about 3000 euro (3300 USD equivalent) per month in benefits... That is considerably more than what I work full time for.
Your idea would cost about $3trillion dollars per year just for the USA. What are you going to tax or what are you going to cut from the federal budget to pay for it?
Inflation is a devalue in money because more money is created. If you raise the hand outs by cutting spending our raising taxes, there will be no inflation. If you print the money or off thin air, it won't be inflation, it will be hyper inflation.
So, I enjoyed my dividend check while I maintained residency. However, that money was offset by my 6$/gallon milk and other ridiculous expenses. The nearest McDonalds, wal-mart, or movie theatre were a hundred miles away, although you could get free weed at school all day long.. hell i didn't know people paid for weed until i moved to the lower 48!
That being said, the real benefit to living in Alaska isn't the dividend fund, it's the top-rate education system. I moved from Alaska to Kentucky my Junior year of HS and went from being a solid c student to straight A. The junior/senior classes in HS covered topics from JR High in Alaska. The state dumps tons of money into education.
The basic sense of the article is that Alaska's system of taking money from various natural resource exploitation activities and saving/redistributing it is a model for the rest of the country/world as the beginnings of a minimum income for all system? Sorry to burst their bubble but its not going to last, oil is no doubt the primary driver of the fund and it will become ever more difficult to sustain its income levels. Its also not really viable for most other areas as Alaska has significantly more natural resources per capita than pretty much anywhere else by a wide margin. Saving a sizable chunk of change and investing it might keep it going for considerably longer but even that has significant risks (I wonder how the fund has weathered some of the crashes since the 80s) and governments invariably raid such money pots for some idiotic pork projects (Alaska is the home to the "Bridge/Highway to nowhere"). Even putting limitations on the funds being extracted may not help. A while back they found oil under a city near me, the city council at that time was rather forward thinking as well and created a fund where a majority of the money was placed and they put a stipulation on the account that only a small percentage (5% I think) could be extracted per year. The very next administration attempted to raid the fund, the bank which held the money and was forbade by contract from giving more than 5% of the funds per year protested, a short court battle ensued but quickly the 5% requirement was voided by the court and the money began to flow. Don't get me wrong, its nice that they're trying to distribute the funds a little more fairly instead of funneling them directly into foolish endeavors/politically connected pockets (though I'm also sure some funds are being skimmed) but its simply not a sustainable system.
"My idea wasn't an intention of a true Basic Income covering all the costs. It was more like a Very Basic Income, a modest step up from the lack of financial security we have now. Losing one's job, or not being able to find one"
Then it doesn't make sense to adjust based on one arbitrary criteria which potentially reduces some costs. There are hundreds of obvious things that reduce the cost to live in addition to getting married, there is no reason for singling out this one and punishing people for it. Loss of job impacts the married just as much as the single. It impacts the working class equally whether at the bottom or the top because expenses tend to be aligned with income and the sudden loss of half your income is a serious financial blow.
Welfare is not needed. Wealth correction is needed. Currently the top 15% have 85% of the wealth and top 1% have over 60% of it. Since the other 99% generate all the wealth provide a basic income for the other 85% of the population that equates to 60% of all wealth generated each year in any year where at least 51% of all wealth in the nation is not in the hands of the bottom 85%. That isn't welfare, it's correcting a serious bug in the system which rewards others than those who actually generate the wealth.
Yeah, socialists are really really bad about abusing the No True Scotsman fallacy.
I'm not certain if you are agreeing, or proving my point.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Typically they disregard how society indirectly provides benefits like a skilled labor pool, infrastructure and other foundations for modern civilization that enabled their company to make millions in profit.
But they don't disregard when society provides boat anchors and albatrosses rather than help. Maybe you shouldn't either.
To be fair given the American definition of capitalism where corporations and the dollar reign absolutely supreme something as simple as being able to go to the doctor without filing for bankruptcy does look like socialism.
Typically they disregard how society indirectly provides benefits like a skilled labor pool, infrastructure and other foundations for modern civilization that enabled their company to make millions in profit.
But they don't disregard when society provides boat anchors and albatrosses rather than help. Maybe you shouldn't either.
What is the final solution for Laissez-faire capitalism, anyhow? Round up those who didn't hit life's lottery, and turn them into food for those of us who did?
The poor, the indigent and even the lazy will never disappear form the earth. And the platitudes spewed out by both left and right are lll in nutshells because they belong in them.
Before you pronounce to the world I'm a sociaist, I'm not. I'm a pragmatist, that most hated species that knows that unbridled idealism of any sort inevitably leads to failure.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That is just in unemplyment benefits, rent subsidies, free this, free that...
Been reading some of kook sites, like huffington post?
The actual number are that the top 1% owned just under 50% of the world's wealth back in May, with the recent stock crashes that is even lower. So the forecast of owning over 50% in 2016 may still happen but it may be 2017. The rest of the your numbers and reasoning is also as false.
So lets look at what it takes to be a top 1%, if you are living in the USA, at least 25 years old, have a degree higher than high school and making the median income(for those factors) or high you are in the 1%.
It does not take much to make it in the top 10%, if you just under $100,000 USD in assets, house, car, retirement, you are in the top 8%. Or just an average citizen in a developed country.
Socialism means that the factories (means of production) belong to the state. This is not the case in Denmark, so your use of the word socialism is ignorant and incorrect.
Socialism is where people own the means of production. Although this is also not the case in Denmark, your use of the word socialism is ignorant and incorrect.
The government owning factories is fascism.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Most European countries do have some markets that are socialist, namely they run a health care system where the means of production (the medical staff) is owned and run by the government. THAT is socialism,
This single sentence demonstrates perfectly that you dont understand the meaning of "socialism" nor universal health care systems.
A lot (meaning most) universal health care systems, even single payer systems allow a lot of private entities to operate within them. From consulting doctors to entire private hospitals, what universal health care does ensure is that private entities cannot overcharge or profiteer and that a patient gets the care they need regardless of their financial status (I.E. you cant be too poor to get treatment).
In some universal health care systems, a public and private system sit side by side. Public provides a minimum standard of care (which is still pretty damn good) and the private system must provide better.
Also, almost all government these days run mixed economies, so they are hybridised as the GP said. Attempts to run pure capitalist or socialist governments have been abject failures although it should be noted that unlike pure socialist governments, pure capitalist governments completely failed to get off the ground.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I'm an American, and I find that the Trotskyites here call anything they don't like - "socialism". It's...... complex, some how.
When Americans say socialism, they usually mean taxes. Typically they disregard how society indirectly provides benefits like a skilled labor pool, infrastructure and other foundations for modern civilization that enabled their company to make millions in profit. .
And yet - at least for my my most vociferous peeps who call anything they disagree with, "socialism" they completely ignore the fact that the soocial security they are collecting is an actual socialist program.
Indeed, the most "conservative guy I know, collects social security, has not paid a medical bill in his adult life, went to college fully paid, and worked for the government his entire life. The way I figure, the evil government he so despises, has shelled out many millions for the guy. The only money he hasn't extracted directly from the guvmint is the interest from the banks where he put their money.
Which is why the "Keep your Government hands off my Medicare crowd: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.... is not conservative at all. They are Trotskyites. They will rail on about being conservative, but nothing is further than the truth.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What is the final solution for Laissez-faire capitalism, anyhow?
Funny how all the places which have "final solutions" never bothered with laissez faire capitalism. But sure, let's concern ourselves with this imaginary problem and come up with imaginary solutions. Hmm, how about we just not do the final solution thing? I think that solves the problem nicely.
The poor, the indigent and even the lazy will never disappear form the earth.
So? You're just making an argument for laissez faire with that sort of fatalism. If you can't do anything to change the situation, then doing nothing to change the situation is a valid optimal solution.
'm a pragmatist, that most hated species that knows that unbridled idealism of any sort inevitably leads to failure.
Well, if you really are a pragmatist, shouldn't you be discussing real problems instead of imaginary ones? That seems to be the point of the definition of the word.
Yep, that why the world has always had no unemployment. What an idiotic statement.
The reality of modern societies is that in the last 100 years, we have gone from predominantly manual human labour to machine labour.
A huge percentage of the population are mainly suited to manual labour, and there will never be jobs for them, and they do drugs etc to briefly escape from their lack of any sense of achievement in any other area. The argument that they don't want to work is stupid, and we are not going back to hand digging trenches etc, so what is the answer, if not some form of income support?
It's always amusing watching Americans go on about socialism, (particularly ironic for a country which has only two right wing parties, one of which is the extreme loopy Republicans and no socialist party at all) however it boils down to one unassailable fact, you let people see their kids and themselves go hungry, or not be able to get medical care they are going to commit crimes.
The first place I ever saw beggars on the street was in the US, I was shocked, having visited many other western countries before and never seen people in such a pitiful state. It's why many consider the US to be the first empire to rise and fall without an intervening period of civilisation.
Social welfare systems. PREVENT crimes of desperation.
When huge amounts of money are in the hands of a few, mainly through family inheritance than their own efforts, inequality and injustice are rife.
At least, this is what has happened to every single commune to ever exist anyways. The only ones to have emerged from that rut eventually just returned to full blown capitalism.
I don't think any countries have "pure" laissez faire capitalism. Most have some mixture of capitalism and socialism (in the sense that things like universal pensions, welfare, sick benefits, corporate taxation, health and safety laws, trade union rights and so on are socialist in origin).
The ones with the least amount of socialism are places like Somalia.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Capitalism means a free market economy, and a free market simply means that prices are determined by the forces of supply and demand.
Unfortunately, capitalism is inherently opposed to a true free market economy, since it allows some people a large unearned advantage (being born rich by inheriting capital). It also encourages the development of monopolies and cartels, in the absence of government "interference".
In a theoretically pure free market, everyone competes on equal terms.
Of course, theoretical pure free markets are jsut that - theoretical.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Now a lot of socialists will tell you that "the people" own the means of production and vote on what the prices of goods will be, but in reality it almost never ends up that way; it's usually governed by political leaders who claim to represent "the people" but never do and just grant themselves favors, and silence anybody who opposes them.
It is perfectly possible to have democratic socialism, e.g. Britain after the Second World War voted in a truly progressive Labour government. The idea that it inevitably produces tyrants is because pretty much all countries where communism/socialism have been tried were not democratic to start with and had no democratic culture or infrastructure (Russia, China, Cuba, wherever)..
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Welfare systems predate socialism by thousands of years
Those pre-socialist welfare systems were more like emergency charity relief than societal entitlements.
The universal availability of health care, unemployment benefit, old age pensions and so on for everybody paid out of universal progressive taxation is quite explicitly a socialist idea.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Good troll mate.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Where does America identify as a democracy and not a republic? Hell, read the pledge of allegiance if you want. I can't really think of any official declarations stating that the US is a democracy - we're a representative democracy I suppose but hardly a true democracy. I imagine even Fox News viewers know this.
There are no current "true democracies" in the Ancient Athenian sense. They're all representative democracies in one form or another.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It comes down to how people value their money, and they value it less when it's just given to them.
That's just something you work ethic guys say to make yourselves feel happier when you're working regular fourteen hour days with no holidays allowed.
Personally, if I have enough money to get happily drunk on a few of bottles of wine, I don't give a toss where it came from.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I think you'll find if the people who own the factories also own government, that's fascism. A government owning its own factories is not fascism by any stretch of the definition.
A republic is a country without a dynastic leader. It has nothing to do with democracy or dictatorship. There are democratic non-republics, democratic republics, non-democratic non-republics, and non-democratic republics. If you wish to use the definition of republic as a "representative democracy without a dynastic leader", it won't help much as that definition is woefully confusing and not at all useful when discussing different systems of governments.
"So lets look at what it takes to be a top 1%, if you are living in the USA, at least 25 years old, have a degree higher than high school and making the median income(for those factors) or high you are in the 1%."
.1% and 1% is even more massive.
You mean about $50,000/yr? Actually it is you who is just making numbers up. That won't even put you in the top 1% by income which requires over $250,000/yr. The net per capita wealth in the United States is $301,140.
"It does not take much to make it in the top 10%, if you just under $100,000 USD in assets, house, car, retirement, you are in the top 8%. Or just an average citizen in a developed country."
That is hardly average. By your own accounting, less than 10% of the population have $100,000 worth of assets. Let alone the $300k anyone with a full time job should have (adjusted for age and the number of years spent getting educated). The lowest earners have no assets. Most median earners have negative assets (debt). High earners might have assets that exceed their debt but still probably not unless they are over the hill. The gap between 1% and 10% is massive. The gap between
Actually, I saw it on a TV show long time ago. One of the 'slow' characters asked that question, and it's always stuck in my mind. :^)
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
My point was, welfare/food stamps/ gubmint money won't buy alot of drugs. They are probably working hard to feed their addiction.
Thank Republican Jesus they can't get any help to become better people. Best we just look down on them and kick them when we go by.
Cheap storage VM.
Well, to be fair, what she actually said is "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
Which is true, in the most technical sense; from Little Diomede island, you can see Big Diomede.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Right. What she actually said was both true and perfectly reasonable. What the comedian said was a perfectly serviceable bit of lampooning. What's ridiculous is the number of people who confused the two.
People don't complain because they think the rates are helping them because their mortgage is financed at some absurdly low rate. But in reality all that money chasing after the supply of homes has driven the cost of them up. Ditto for education, which is even more ridiculous.
Indian regime owes reparations to 300 million Untouchable for 2000 years of Caste system; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Casteism
You are mixing up socialism and communism.
We have socialism in America right now. Like... "Social Security"....it happens to be pretty popular.
Again, it is you who has the wrong definition, pushed forward by Fox News and other people with interest in tainting the debate.
I can only encourage you to read up on the difference between social programs (e.g social security) and public ownership of means of production (socialism).
As it pertains to this story... some of the largest oil companies in the world happen to be nationalized, in that they are wholly owned or the largest shareholder is a nation... I was thinking Denmark, but it might be Norway... as is China. I know this because I questioned the great idea to sell Canadian tarsands land to oil companies that for all intents and purposes represent another country, which amounts to literally selling your natural resources directly to another nation...
I'm a liberal, so I'm not taking any definitions from Fox. But you are right, in that I got the textbook definition of socialism mixed up. Per google:
"socialism
sSHlizm/
noun
noun: socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."